| answer text |
<p>The Government believes that effective trade defence measures should be proportionate,
not protectionist, and strike a balance between removing the injury to producers caused
by unfair trade, and avoiding imposing unnecessary costs on user industries, retailers,
consumers and the rest of the economy.</p><p>The evidence we have shows that duties
that have been imposed under the Lesser Duty Rule on imports of Chinese steel into
the EU have been effective in delivering rapid, substantial and sustained reductions
in imports. For example, imports of wire rod, organic coated steel and stainless steel
flat products are down by more than 90%. We have said we would look at evidence that
others might provide.</p><p>There are a number of examples where the Lesser Duty Rule
has avoided unnecessary costs to the rest of the economy. In the case of solar panels
for example, the removal of the Lesser Duty Rule could have cost the downstream UK
solar sector around £500m in one year.</p><p>We support looking at the methodology
under which injury is calculated. Where the European Commission has set duties that
we believe to be too low to remove the injury caused to EU industry by unfair trade,
we will push for them to be increased, as we have done in the reinforcing bar and
cold rolled flat products cases.</p>
|
|
